If you thought the belly-baring thing was bad enough, take a good look at the sartorial depths to which fashion has now sunk. The Los Angeles Times this week declared it "the summer of the pelvic bone." Last year's already obscene low-riders have gone the way of high-water polyester pants.

Today's hip-huggers have almost nothing but hope to hang onto anymore. The "normal" inseam-to-waist rise of 8 to 9 inches is shrinking faster than Britney Spears' record sales. To wit, Levi's has introduced a new line of jeans called "Too Superlow" for women. Upping the ante, or should I say lowering it, the teenage-girl brand Gasoline markets "Down2There"—adjustable low-rise jeans with a built-in bungee cord designed to help the wearer drop her pants to even nastier nadirs.

Canadian teen singer Avril Lavigne's perilously sagging pants are a global youth phenomenon. "My butt crack showing is like my trademark," she gracefully explained to a music reporter. Salon.com writer Janelle Brown approves: "(T)he butt crack is the new cleavage, reclaimed to peek seductively from the pants of supermodels and commoners alike."

The late senator and social critic Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous phrase "Defining deviancy down" has taken on a whole new meaning.

Grownups, be forewarned: Avril's fashion nonsense is seeping into other markets. Levi's recently launched a "Dangerously Low" line for men. Another of its low-rise men's lines is dubbed, appropriately enough, "Offender." Actor Brad Pitt has popularized the Diesel brand low-risers. Toronto-based writer Jim Oldfield says the trend has overwhelmed mainstream men's stores and orders are already piling up for the fall. One Canadian merchant helpfully advised Oldfield that hip men are wearing the jeans commando-style.

In other words: "Underwear is, like, not required."

Even expectant women can't escape these drooping duds. Popular young actress and mom-to-be Kate Hudson has been photographed parading around in low-rise cargo pants and toddler-sized crop tops to show off her growing belly. At a recent trip to my neighborhood mall's maternity store, the only jeans in my size were ridiculous low-risers with flared bottoms that needed hiking every time I exhaled.

Trust me: This nouveau plumber's crack chic does not look any better on the overweight guy crouching under your kitchen sink than it does on a six-months-pregnant lady trying to bend over to pick up her toddler without mooning the world.

What will it take to convince the current cohort of exhibitionistas that sleaze is not sexy—that less is not always more, that low is low-class? If Generation X-rated can't be persuaded to cover up out of moral necessity, perhaps they will listen to medical authority. A warning about the health hazards of low-rise pants was published in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association six months ago. According to Dr. Malvinder Parmar, a painful condition called "meralgia paresthetica" is causing wearers of hip-huggers to experience "tingling or a burning sensation" in the thighs.

Dr. Parmar's treatment: four to six weeks in—the horror!— loose-fitting dresses. Must have been worse than swallowing cod liver oil.

Avril and Britney and Brad need to show their fans that a little extra fabric is not a death sentence. The late Kate Hepburn melted hearts while fully clothed in turtlenecks and roomy, belted trousers. She was a "hottie" who showed us her cheekbones, and left the rest where it should be left: to the imagination.

Alas, modesty has been long out of vogue. But it's a fashion rule of thumb that what's out eventually becomes in. The day when "clothed is the new naked" can't come soon enough.

And this sort of trash will soon be marketed in the children's clothing sections of stores. It's happened with other styles that are worn by late-teen/early 20's celebrities which are then made in children's (Not teens, elementary and younger) sizes. It's supposed to be "cute" to see a 5 or 6 y.o. child looking like a tart or thug.

Well, NOT on my kids it's not and they're being taught to reject it.

Sorry, /rant off

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I've looked at some of the modest clothing sites that Nik has listed. There are some good things there that would be excellent for church, school and such occasions. But for other times I don't think that it's improper to sometimes wear pants or shorts as long as they are not too short/too low etc. (The ones in the article above are Right Out, needless to say.)

/more then people probably want to read on

Serge had a link on his blog last week of an essay that a priest wrote about (in part) females in pants are trying to be men. (I've pondered commenting on it, but I don't know if there is some "Blog comment etiquette about that.)

Now, clothing is a very cultural thing and has developed over time due to materials available, ways of dealing with the materials (figuring out how to make scissors for example) and the conditions under which clothing is worn.. Is a woman in Pakistan wearing Kameez and trousers being a "man"? Is a Japanese woman working out of doors in "mompe" being a "man"? Or a women in extreme cold climates? In hot climates men and women wear things like lava-lavas or other forms of "skirt" that doesn't mean that the males are dressing like "women". Why would a western woman doing work that a skirt would be a hindrance somehow not be womanly or modest?

Dorothy Sayers, a Christian writer and acquaintance of the Inklings who also wrote mysteries wrote an essay called "Are Women Human?" It is in a little book with another of her essays. She was by no means a radical feminist as might be seen today. But she was one of the first women to graduate from Oxford and got questioned on being womanly for using her brains and talents. The essay mentions the case of wearing pants in the section on Men doing things for Human ("Homo" as opposed to "Vir" i.e. male) reasons (pants are comfortable and protect the legs in cold weather) while women doing the same things are only being "femina" (they're trying to be men)

At the picnic on Saturday, my children wore shorts (not skimpy) and tee-shirts as it is August in Maryland and they were going to be playing in woods. My daughter was modestly covered but could climb the slide, see-saw and go on the peddle boat with TomS and his wife. On Sunday she went to church in a long sleeved dress with a modest skirt and even worn her new summer hat all of her own choosing.

Sorry, these thoughts have been perculating between picnic prep and swim lessons and other extrania

/more then people probably want to read off

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Yeah, there's a difference between men's pants & woman's pants in our culture, so I don't see how it's trying to be a man. As long as it's modest, and they're not trying to look like a man (I don't see many woman wearing pants & think, oh, wow, I thought that was a man because they're wearing womans pants & not a skirt), I don't see what could possibly be wrong with it.

I'm from the Gunn clan myself (well, the bit of my ancestry that is Scottish is)

John the unwashed.

Aye...of my four grandparents, three are second-third generation Scottish immigrants, and the fourth is third generation Irish. My last name(Galloway) is usually listed as a sept of clan MacFarlane, but sometimes as it's own clan. Galloway and Dumfries is the name of the southern region of Scotland along the English border.

Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."-Yazid Ibrahim

It's been quite sometime since I've last posted, and I doubt this actually fits in with the topic as it stands, but I've seen something that shocked me to the core: I was at a mall not very long ago, and in the childrens' department of a nation-wide department store. We were shopping for my cousin's birthday present mind, I'm talking about the young childrens' department, about 5-9 or so. and I came across such a vulgar shirt for a small girl to wear that I have since stopped going to that particular store. It was a shirt with suckers on it, with the words: Cherry Pops: 50 c. I certainly hope this is an isolated incident and that no other such offensive shirts are available for small children to wear. I can't imagine any parent wanting their child to wear such filth.

On another note, it must be getting difficult for prostitutes to stand out for their prospective clients these days, since current fashions have young women dressing as prostitutes did just a few years ago.

A&F routinely pushes the sexual envelope with its teeny-bopping catalogs,but in May it marketed thong underwear for girls as young as 10 years old,prompting a boycott and the ire of the media. Editorial writers blasted A&Ffor "encouraging pedophilia" (San Francisco Chronicle), and The Wall StreetJournal called for a boycott.

Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."-Yazid Ibrahim

What I find curious is that people I know who are utterly secular and aren't what I would call morally conservative are making a lot of the same comments. A fellow at the office who coaches kid's sports has girls showing up in scoop-neck T-shirts which, shall we say, show all when these girls bend over.

I guess we should all go to the Euphropynos Cafe and visit the links to modest clothing, it really doesn't seem all that bad these days. I saw some Mennonites on Mackinac Island last month, and it was refreshing to see women and men and children wearing nice, decent, and sensible clothing. Our society certainly makes a good case for it.

I guess we should all go to the Euphropynos Cafe and visit the links to modest clothing, it really doesn't seem all that bad these days. I saw some Mennonites on Mackinac Island last month, and it was refreshing to see women and men and children wearing nice, decent, and sensible clothing. Our society certainly makes a good case for it.

I suppose one issue I'm having with this whole discussion is that it isn't so much about clothing per se as it is about women's clothing. Modesty in men's clothing isn't much of an issue in our culture (though appropriateness often is, but that's a different story). There's something off-key about a bunch of guys fussing about what gals should be wearing. It's one thing when you have (for example) a seven-year-old daughter. I feel free to fulminate at length about the kind of clothing the industry (entertainment, clothing, take your pick) tries to get me to buy for her. Of course, the same applies for my sons, but the issue is different-- there's nothing considered suggestive about a tee-shirt and shorts, but what's on the tee-shirt is another matter.

In loco parentis, though, has its limits. All sorts of class issues ensue if I tell someone outside my family how to dress. Indeed, the possibilities for pharisaism should be obvious: modesty converted into a class issue.

I was looking over the end of summer sales advertisements for children's clothes. Boys shorts and tee-shirts were longer, more sturdy material and sometimes cheaper. The ones for girls (size 4-16) were skimpier (shorter shorts with obviously lower waistlines, tees that were cropped to only go roughly to slightly below the waist) and looked to be made of thinner/cheaper cloth (so it wouldn't last as long or stand up to really being worn in playing situations) and cost more. Grrrr. There weren't any advertised with tacky/crude etc sayings, but I've seen such in the past.

So what is this teaching girls? That they have to replace clothing more often at greater cost (i.e. buy into being bigger consumers), not actually do active things like running and playing ( because the clothing can't take the wear and tear) and that immodest display (navels, low necklines and so forth) is what is to be done to get attention. Phoo!

There are some lines of "girls" shorts and shirts that don't do that, but careful shopping is required. The basic plain tee-shirt can fortunately go for either boys or girls.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

NEW YORK — Liberate your undies! That's what one online retailer is imploring Americans to do Wednesday.

Freshpair.com wants people to flash a little thong, reveal a bra strap or offer a peek of their boxers as a show of support for the proposed National Underwear Day.

To help get the party started, the undergarment e-shop is unleashing 20 models clad only in their drawers onto the streets of New York City petitioning to make Aug. 13 a day to honor underwear. Supporters can also add their names to the list on Freshpair.com's Web site.

NEW YORK — Liberate your undies! That's what one online retailer is imploring Americans to do Wednesday.

Freshpair.com wants people to flash a little thong, reveal a bra strap or offer a peek of their boxers as a show of support for the proposed National Underwear Day.

To help get the party started, the undergarment e-shop is unleashing 20 models clad only in their drawers onto the streets of New York City petitioning to make Aug. 13 a day to honor underwear. Supporters can also add their names to the list on Freshpair.com's Web site.

I can't think of a worse, more tacky thing to celebrate on the anniversary of the death of my Grandfather. It's so wonderful that people should have a day to honour their underwear, this is complete garbage.